Flee from idolatry

Originally posted by Copperbod: ↑

"This is the ONLY option where you have "was"eimi: I exist, I am
Original Word: εἰμί
Part of Speech: VerbTransliteration: eimi
Phonetic Spelling: (i-mee')
Definition: I exist, I am
Usage: I am, exist."
I am completely out of my depth when it comes to understanding and translating Greek.
However you are way behind me yet imagine you know better than countless Greek speaking translators ??
Go figure.

I still don't understand what your issue is with translating "eimi:" as "was" because in this context John is writing about something that existed in the beginning ... his past. In other words it "was" in the beginning.

If your objection is that was is not a valid word then you need to look again.
The Strong's simple concordance is a generality certainly not the only words that can be used because "eimi:" is a verb and doesn't detail what tense .. which in Greek is a very complicated matter.
Why do you think the saying "It's all Greek to me" was invented !
Just look at all the other concords on that same page.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm

Even so I don't see how your version affects the meaning or clarifies what John was trying to convey .. that the Word was with God and God is and was the Word.

Most of your issues are because you insist on Sola Scriptura and the claimed infallibility/God's word of the Bible. It just isn't true.

Thus you (and plenty of others) must spend huge amounts of time trying to devise an interpretation that fits a square peg into a round hole. All with slightly different pegs !

Can't help with 1:14 except as part of the above.
You will never convince a single conventional Christian that John was not trying to elevate Jesus to the status of the Word and as a support for the Trinity doctrine.
Better to forget that dead end and concentrate on the real issues such as John claiming that Jesus, well known as the word and image of God is the God/Word that facilitated the Creation of the Universe.
That's John's claim and overreach of the divinity of Jesus.
The first questions should be why none of this is even hinted at in the other Gospels and why is John's Gospel so different from the others.

.

Expand

You totally miss the ONE KEY message of the opener of John and what God himself introduces himself as and that is WORD.
He continues to interchange himself and his word as One, pretty much for the entire prologue.
Trouble is, you lot see word or logos and immediately your head goes to expressed words mode = you foolish children, time to wake up, Lights on and use the head you were given.

Logic and commonsense then tells us, we ARE the image of WORD = Word.
You are word.

Hence 1:14 And Word/Humanto become and encamp in I = God. ............and as sure as s... Jesus says, I am in the Father = Drrrrrrrrrrrrr.
John 17:20-23 = One in Word = twofold.
I (Word) and the Father (Word) are one -> WORD.

John's opener (1:14) is NOT literally placing Jesus in 1:14, that is an event yet to happen, after he meets John the Baptist Mal 3:1.
Jesus only literally shows up in John when he meets John the Baptist.
No way is Jesus in 1:1 either, only as a plan within God, his inner logos, dead center of 1:1 and the beginning of 1:2 -> "This;"........

I do not give a hoot if the mainstream never accept this, I will NOT bend truth to keep the masses happy, never going to happen.
They WILL get it eventually, as they will have NO other option but to accept it, that you can be rest assured of.
We will also see who has the last laugh.
I'm not suggesting doom for everyone, just the above.

Goodness me, what in the hec are you having trouble with, re I exist or I am, what's so hard about just using one of them as they are, the first defined options, is what you SHOULD be using.
"was" is not even an option to select from. (I don't give a rats what the bias masses have falsely added).
If one works on your said crazy approach, you would get errors all over the place, way more than we already have.
It's like a New Coppo has hit the scene?????????????????????????????? (Are you sure your OK?).

As I have already said, if John was translated correctly from the get go, there would not be this rubbish of John's opener.
It's got satan's finger prints all over it = check mate, gottcha suckers.

Where Jesus is referenced as saying -> before Abraham "I am" -> why are you not translating that as "was", or do you think it's OK to chop and change as You see fit ??????????????????????????????